For once I almost kind of accept the premise of Krauthammer's argument. Republicans don't want to do much of anything on taxes ("closing loopholes" while being revenue neutral is just shifting around the tax burden, most of the time more regressively), and Democrats want to raise revenues by changing tax loopholes and rates (you know, actually doing what taxes are supposed to do, raise money for the government). So to compromise we should close loopholes that both sides can agree with (as if they actually exist), use some of the money to fund government (like Democrats want), but not all of it (like Republicans want).

This is actually a compromise, which is where I kind of accept his premise. It's not a particularly good compromise, and his statement of "you already got your tax hike in January" is complete crap (sunset provisions anyone?). But the basic notion of "compromise" is actually there, which is fairly new.

Lost Thought 00:Is he asking us to raise tax rates to 50%? Or cut them in half?

he is asking for a massive reduction in tax breaks and loopholes. With the extra revenue gained from this, we use 50% for spending/Deficit reduction and 50% for a lowering of the actual tax rates. Overall, there would be a net increase in taxes.

theknuckler_33:The new revenue went directly back to the citizenry in the form of lower tax rates.This is called revenue-neutrality....As a final bonus, tax reform's lower rates spur economic growth.

We're gonna take more in taxes by doing X, but take less by doing Y. X-Y=0. *magic happens* Economic growth!

It's foolproof.

Apparently throughout that whole process, we're supposed to trust the government (which is half composed of dumbass wealth-fellating Republicans) to eliminate deductions and tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy.

Is anyone alive stupid enough to believe something like that would happen?

Cut the shiat and make your objection, everyone knows what you're trying to say. This fake Socratic BS is annoying.

/what objection?

OK. The original statement implying that "we're" suffering because of insanely low tax rates leaves me wondering exactly who is suffering. I'm not suffering. Are you suffering? The rich certainly aren't suffering.

"The budget" is a rather vague answer, especially considering there currently is no budget. Perhaps a budget envisioned by somebody.

astro716:Does he forget the part where the government doesn't "keep it all," but instead spends it on keeping people employed in both the public and private sectors?

That was not his point. His point was that 1/2 of the increase in revenue could be used for these types of items (or conversly deficit reduction) and the other half would be directly returned to the taxpayers via lowere tax rates.

HeadLever:Lost Thought 00: Is he asking us to raise tax rates to 50%? Or cut them in half?

he is asking for a massive reduction in tax breaks and loopholes. With the extra revenue gained from this, we use 50% for spending/Deficit reduction and 50% for a lowering of the actual tax rates. Overall, there would be a net increase in taxes.

un4gvn666:Apparently throughout that whole process, we're supposed to trust the government (which is half composed of dumbass wealth-fellating Republicans) to eliminate deductions and tax breaks that only benefit the wealthy

Or you could have read the actaul article and seen that he does this by implementing Martin Feldstien's plan